congress-puts kibosh on westboros-military-funeral-protests

[bobcollum]

^ Hopefully joking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No logic on your part.

The protest is not part of the funeral.

If it were part of the film, would you attack it?

 

[there4eyeM]

Public space is public space.

Going uninvited into private areas is and should be protected by law (more than it presently is, as things seem to me).

Protest is protected by, guess what....!

 

[Truthmatters]

They can still protest but they are not allowed to distroy the funerals of soldiers

 

[there4eyeM]

The protest is for redress of grievance with the central government, no?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The protest is for redress of grievance with the central government, no?

Then they should take it up with the central government instead of greving families.

Public space is public space.
Sure is. I don't of any that does't have use restrictions of some sort. Do you?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

i sure the hell hope the ussc overturns anything like this.....

they are protesting on public property....there should be no restrictions

Sadly, you're correct. Those supporting this legislation are sending us down a slippery slope. It's the unpopular speech that the First Amendment is there to protect.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yea, you 'hope' that. I'll stick with 'hoping' it goes to the SC... they - at least in theory -will uphold the Constitution.

The judiciary branch has been just as complicit over the past few generations in shredding the Constitution as the legislative and executive branches have. The ObamaCare ruling proved we can no longer trust them to protect our rights either.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Then they should take it up with the central government instead of greving families."

Given how they are doing it, yes. Personally, I find this in unnecessarily poor taste and would not do it.

They are taking it up with the government with their presence on public property displaying a demand for redress.

'Should' is a question of morality, right and wrong and, so, subjective. Subject to my choice, it is wrong. At the same time, it is protected speech.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Like it or not free speech is free speech. This should be reversed and westboro should be.........................

 

[Zxereus]

The Westboro inbreds are beyond dispicable, but I'm uncomfortable with denying protests on public property.

By the way, here's a hillarious video involving these cretons, it get's good keep watching.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE]Flirting with a Westboro Church man - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then the government officials locally should handle the Westboro baptists as we did the TP who were planning on doing all the shouting down and nonsense with the town meetings: protest peacefully and quietly or be arrested for public disturbance. It worked quite well for us.

 

[there4eyeM]

I don't think the First Amendment applies to decibels. That might work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 1st Amendment does not prohibit the enforcement of public disruption ordinances.

That approach sure worked in corralling our more silly TP members at the town hall meetings.

 

[tererun]

This has been the purpose of the WBC for a long time. It has been to give government the power to remove the rights of speech deemed offensive. This is a big step closer to keeping legitimate protests down because some people find them offensive. Oh wait, who am i kidding, the republicans find them offensive.

Before you guys go blaming obama, if this passed through congress it passed right by the republican controlled house. In other words the republicans who were elected to control the house a few years back just fucked all their constituents by removing their rights. What do we expect from the designers of the patriot act? Bush's legacy lives on and becomes stronger.

Sorry guys, but even if obama signs this into law he was the last person responsible for this, and given the supposed caring for people's rights the reps claim they have, it is them who gave it to obama to sign. Of course, if obama has the balls to not sign it and protect the freedom of speech then I guess that means obama is far more protective of our rights than any republican congressman. I have to wonder, if obama doesn't sign it and we get the typical Romney reaction that he is wrong, does that mean Romney hates our freedom of speech too?

 

[there4eyeM]

Aren't there already other laws restricting protest near the president?

 

[Zxereus]

This has been the purpose of the WBC for a long time. It has been to give government the power to remove the rights of speech deemed offensive. This is a big step closer to keeping legitimate protests down because some people find them offensive. Oh wait, who am i kidding, the republicans find them offensive.

Before you guys go blaming obama, if this passed through congress it passed right by the republican controlled house. In other words the republicans who were elected to control the house a few years back just fucked all their constituents by removing their rights. What do we expect from the designers of the patriot act? Bush's legacy lives on and becomes stronger.

Sorry guys, but even if obama signs this into law he was the last person responsible for this, and given the supposed caring for people's rights the reps claim they have, it is them who gave it to obama to sign. Of course, if obama has the balls to not sign it and protect the freedom of speech then I guess that means obama is far more protective of our rights than any republican congressman. I have to wonder, if obama doesn't sign it and we get the typical Romney reaction that he is wrong, does that mean Romney hates our freedom of speech too?

So the REAL goal of the Westboro dickheads, was to make enough nuisnace that then free speech would be further limited and it would end such protests as Occupy ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . and Westboro? Something does not make a whole lot of sense here, you geniuses.

 

[paulitician]

This is a very slippery-slope. Another Government over-reach.

 

[Zoom]

Chick fil a hate can have free speech, but these ass wipes can't? Free speech if not? Can't have if both ways.